4 ms·

I don't think that is really relevant. You can't decentralize the decision to (e.g.) increase or decrease criminal sentence length by ten per cent, which is why

by dash2 3y ago

I don't think that is really relevant. You can't decentralize the decision to (e.g.) increase or decrease criminal sentence length by ten per cent, which is why we need good economic studies to estimate its effects. In general, many policy choices cannot be decentralized away. Also, even if you decentralize them, people still want to know what their choices will do. Suppose I'm considering getting a divorce and I want to know how it will affect my children. Is everyone in this position supposed to do their own literature review? Or just "use their own good sense" and guess what the effect will be?

golergka 3y ago
You can. Polycentric law and charter cities.
- notahacker 3y ago
  Both are poor at yielding useful results for social policy. "Charter cities" and equivalents will give you all sorts of results that don't generalise (judging by the number of businesses that relocated their tax domicile to this underpopulated area, a 1% cut in corporation tax could lead to a 1000% rise in GDP per capita) and "polycentric law" won't really resolve any legal questions other than "in which circumstances can x persuade/force y to accept arbitrator z's decision"
constantcrying 3y ago
>You can't decentralize the decision to (e.g.) increase or decrease criminal sentence length by ten per cent You absolutely can. It also exists right now in the form of federalism, where people can, to some limited extent, choose their own legislation and policies.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 3y ago
> You can't decentralize the decision to (e.g.) increase or decrease criminal sentence length by ten per cent. Sure we could; different laws in different locations; let people see what works. That is how the world does things now - note that different countries have different legal codes and by experiment everyone comes to a sort-of consensus on what works, with lots of variance between jurisdictians when people don't agree. That diversity of law can be re-done at any practical scale. I quite like the idea of different cities having different laws (oh, for the world to have a few more Hong Kongs in it! And note how well single-city legal entities usually do).
- pixl97 3y ago
  I mean, we already have that. For state crimes we have state sentencing, for federal crimes we have federal sentencing. >That diversity of law can be re-done at any practical scale. Eh..... Only at an extreme cost. I mean in a few minutes of actually thinking about the problem I hope you could see how this would totally fall apart. For example you live in BumFkt Nebraska and sell widget X. Totally legal in BumFkt. Your neighbors in Timbuktu Nebraska order X on your website and you ship to them. Oops, you've both committed felonies in Timbuktu, and now if you ever go there you'll be arrested on site and imprisoned. Typically every state constitution in the US holds itself as the highest authority in that state. Cities and make their own regulations, but the state is the final arbiter in setting the limits to their power to keep petty squabbling shit from damaging the citizens of said state. After that the federal government can step in, and quite often has as some particular states love to violate human rights dependant on the minority group you're in.

by dash2 3y ago

golergka 3y ago

You can. Polycentric law and charter cities.

notahacker 3y ago
Both are poor at yielding useful results for social policy. "Charter cities" and equivalents will give you all sorts of results that don't generalise (judging by the number of businesses that relocated their tax domicile to this underpopulated area, a 1% cut in corporation tax could lead to a 1000% rise in GDP per capita) and "polycentric law" won't really resolve any legal questions other than "in which circumstances can x persuade/force y to accept arbitrator z's decision"

constantcrying 3y ago

>You can't decentralize the decision to (e.g.) increase or decrease criminal sentence length by ten per cent You absolutely can. It also exists right now in the form of federalism, where people can, to some limited extent, choose their own legislation and policies.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

roenxi 3y ago

> You can't decentralize the decision to (e.g.) increase or decrease criminal sentence length by ten per cent. Sure we could; different laws in different locations; let people see what works. That is how the world does things now - note that different countries have different legal codes and by experiment everyone comes to a sort-of consensus on what works, with lots of variance between jurisdictians when people don't agree. That diversity of law can be re-done at any practical scale. I quite like the idea of different cities having different laws (oh, for the world to have a few more Hong Kongs in it! And note how well single-city legal entities usually do).

pixl97 3y ago
I mean, we already have that. For state crimes we have state sentencing, for federal crimes we have federal sentencing. >That diversity of law can be re-done at any practical scale. Eh..... Only at an extreme cost. I mean in a few minutes of actually thinking about the problem I hope you could see how this would totally fall apart. For example you live in BumFkt Nebraska and sell widget X. Totally legal in BumFkt. Your neighbors in Timbuktu Nebraska order X on your website and you ship to them. Oops, you've both committed felonies in Timbuktu, and now if you ever go there you'll be arrested on site and imprisoned. Typically every state constitution in the US holds itself as the highest authority in that state. Cities and make their own regulations, but the state is the final arbiter in setting the limits to their power to keep petty squabbling shit from damaging the citizens of said state. After that the federal government can step in, and quite often has as some particular states love to violate human rights dependant on the minority group you're in.